adodbapi: Make multiline ISC explicit

[Avasam]

Follow-up to #2242

@vernondcole Make multiline Implicit String Concatenation explicit to avoid mixing up parameters and concatenation.

Found using ruff check --select=ISC002
and the following config in ruff.toml:

[lint.flake8-implicit-str-concat]
allow-multiline = false

[vernondcole]

Adding my comment here -- even though the PR has been closed.
I am concerned that this might have been the wrong direction to go anyway.
It seems to me that the implicit string concatenation would be done at compile time, while the explicit version would not happen until run time. If that is so, then the implicit version is slightly more efficient and should be preferred.

[Avasam]

On modern Python compiler, the difference performance wise is within margin of error (I'm pretty sure implicit or explicit string literal concatenation are handled the same):

PS> python -V
Python 3.9.13
PS> python -m timeit "'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa' 'bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb'"
50000000 loops, best of 5: 6.28 nsec per loop
PS> python -m timeit "'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa'+'bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb'"
50000000 loops, best of 5: 6.32 nsec per loop
PS> python -m timeit "'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa' 'bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb'"
50000000 loops, best of 5: 6.21 nsec per loop
PS> python -m timeit "'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa'+'bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb'"
50000000 loops, best of 5: 6.28 nsec per loop

PS> python3.12 -m timeit "'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa' 'bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb'"
20000000 loops, best of 5: 12.7 nsec per loop
PS> python3.12 -m timeit "'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa'+'bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb'"
20000000 loops, best of 5: 12.8 nsec per loop
PS> python3.12 -m timeit "'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa' 'bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb'"
20000000 loops, best of 5: 12.8 nsec per loop
PS> python3.12 -m timeit "'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa'+'bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb'"
20000000 loops, best of 5: 12.6 nsec per loop

However, there's other reasons to not accept this overall stylistic change, as mentioned in #2266 , with which this PR should've been closed.